Thoreau v.s.

Crane Essay

Allison Swann

CAP English 9 Red Group

January 5, 2018
 Henry David Thoreau’s Walden and Stephen Crane’s Maggie: A Girl of the Streets would

share similar views on philanthropists, but would disagree on their viewpoints regarding whether

choice or fate determines one’s life path and on the possibility of self-reliance. Walden focuses

on Henry David Thoreau’s decision to build a cabin on Walden Pond in Massachusetts. Maggie:

A Girl of the Streets is a story about a family of Irish-Catholic immigrants living in the Lower

East side of New York in the 1890s. The story follows Maggie and her brother Jimmie has they

struggle to survive in the poverty and hardship around them.

Thoreau and Crane would agree that philanthropists are hypocritical. When Thoreau

states “...a charity that hides a multitude of sins” in Walden, he is talking about philanthropists

(62). Thoreau believed that philanthropists are selfish and only donate to help themselves and

their reputation. Thoreau later says “I never heard of a philanthropic meeting in which it was

sincerely proposed to do any good…” (63). Philanthropists only donate when it is convenient for

them and not because people need it.

Crane agrees with Thoreau but also makes the point that philanthropists do not listen to

the needs of those who are less fortunate, but only care about their own agenda. In Maggie: a

Girl of the Streets there is a passage in which a clergyman gives out soup to people in need, but

makes them listen to a sermon before they were given soup. During the sermon, “many of the

sinners were impatient over the pictured depths of their degradation. They were waiting for soup-

tickets” (Crane 46). Even though the clergyman is helping people by feeding them, he is only

doing this so they will first listen to his sermon. This selfishness supports both Crane’s and

Thoreau’s point about philanthropists. Later in the book, Maggie is out on the streets, homeless

and approaches a priest to beg for food and money. But, “... as the girl timidly accosted him, he

gave a convulsive movement and saved his respectability by a vigorous sidestep” (87). A priest
of all people is supposed to be generous, kind, and most of all philanthropists. The priest did not

care about helping Maggie when him helping could damage his reputation. The authors agree

that philanthropists are self-centered people who don't give only out of the kindness of their

hearts.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane have different views on whether choice or fate

determines one’s life path. Thoreau believes that one can determine the path and course of life if

one chooses to. He writes “What a man thinks of himself, that is which determines, or rather

indicates, his fate” (Thoreau 11). This quote establishes that Thoreau believes that a person can

choose the path to go down and how successful they will be. Thoreau is confident that one can

overcome any obstacles. This is shown when he says “It is never too late to give up our

prejudices” (Thoreau 11). He believes that no matter where one comes from, or their family,

determining fate is up to oneself.

Crane, on the other hand, believes that fate is determined by the environment in which

one grows up in and thus is a set path that cannot be changed. Crane shows this when Jimmie

tells Maggie "yeh've ever got the go teh hell or go teh work!" (49). In this, he is telling her that

because of where they live being a factory worker or prostitute is the only way that she will

survive. Later in the book, when Crane describes Jimmie’s life when he grows up he simply

states, “he became a truck driver” (Crane 47). There is no explanation for his because that is the

norm of the area in which Jimmie is growing up. Jimmie's options are not as open as someone

else in a different environment. Maggie’s options are even more limited than Jimmie’s and “By

chance, she got a position in an establishment where they made collars and cuffs” (50). Maggie

working in the factory is a good thing for where she lives despite the terrible conditions and low

pay. Since Maggie and Jimmie live where they do, they have limited options and a fixed fate.
This causes Jimmie at only sixteen to develop a “chronic sneer of an ideal manhood” (3). This

sneer describes the fate of all the people that live in that environment.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane have conflicting viewpoints on the possibility

of self-reliance. Thoreau believes that self-reliance is an important part of living. According to

Thoreau, when one is self-reliant, they will live “simply and wisely” (53). In Thoreau’s mind,

waiting around for other people slows one down and makes it hard to live as he thinks one

should. He portrays this when he states “... the man who goes alone can start today; but he who

travels with another must wait till the other is ready” (60). He goes on to say that “...to maintain

one’s self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime…” (59). By saying this, he is implying

that thinking about oneself and caring for one should be one's highest priority. This means that

one should not need to work hard to be self-reliant but instead, it should come naturally.

Unlike Thoreau, Crane believes that some people are unable to be self-reliant and need

other people to survive. Crane’s story shows this concept through Maggie. When Pete, Maggie’s

lover, goes back to his former lover Nellie and leaves Maggie, he essentially “ruined her” (Crane

82). Maggie is destroyed and doesn’t know what to do with herself. She relies so heavily on Pete

that when he leaves she is lost. Out of desperation, Maggie goes back to her mother and brother.

They, in turn, criticize her and the only one that doesn’t is the old lady in the tenement. She

offers Maggie to “come in an’ stay wid me teh night ” which temporarily gives Maggie a person

on whom she relies on (84). Later in the book, Crane writes “from her eyes had been plucked all

look of self-reliance”(Crane 73). Maggie is losing hope and struggling to survive on her own.

When Maggie reaches out to the priest for help, and he sidesteps her, Crane writes “for how was

he to know that there was a soul before him that needed saving?” (Crane 87). If the priests would

have helped her, she might not have stayed a prostitute, or in the end, killed herself. Maggie and
Jimmie come from a struggling family in a poor neighborhood so Crane points out that they may

need help from those who are more fortunate to survive and that self-reliance is not always an

option.

Henry David Thoreau’s Walden and Stephen Crane’s Maggie: A Girl of the Streets share

similar views on philanthropists, but disagree on their viewpoints regarding whether choice or

fate determines one’s life path and on the possibility of self-reliance. Thoreau and Crane agree

that philanthropists are selfish people who don’t care about the people that they are helping as

long as it benefits themselves. The author’s ideas on whether choice or fate determines one’s life

path and on the possibility of self-reliance differ whereas Thoreau believes that determining

one's own life is a crucial part in living, when Crane believes that one's fate is determined by

their environment. On self-reliance, Thoreau’s views are that independence is more important

than neediness, while Crane believes that some people need help to survive and simply cannot be

self-reliant. Overall, Henry David Thoreau in Walden and Stephen Crane in Maggie: A Girl of

the Streets both discuss their opinions on multiple subjects through their respective books.

Works Cited

Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. N.p.: Stephen Crane, 1893. Print.

Thoreau, Henry David.Walden. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1854. Print.